+0
It seems to me that the IMF and other global US institutions serve the US imperialistic agendas, and they, the US, try to cover this by, in fact, committing efforts into legitimate programs. Indeed, how can the IMF, for instance, impose severe conditions to countries that borrowed money, these frugality programs that help undevelop these countries that are already below the threshold of poverty? It's not that these institutions are necessarily evil per se, but that the US influence seems to dictate their development in a pernicious way so as not to allow them to serve effectively the ends that they were created for, but rather serve their own geopolitical agendas in a very subtle way. Think of Latin America, didn't the US impose severe economic sanctions to certain countries in the region or threw uncooperative but legitimate governments into anarchy? I believe, for instance, that the US by promoting neo-liberal principles and thus deviating from the original philosophy of the IMF is serving its agenda in spreading poverty to lesser and less assertive nations. Other such actions carried through seemingly legitimate institutions seem to serve the same agenda. No matter what era, we see more of the same thing; bullying and plundering.
Comments  
wholegrainIt seems to me that the IMF and other global US institutions serve the US imperialistic agendas, and they, the US, try to cover this by, in fact, committing efforts into resources to legitimate programs. Indeed, how can the IMF, for instance, impose severe conditions to upon countries that borrowed money, ( these frugality programs that help undevelop these countries that are already below the threshold of poverty? ) It's not that these institutions are necessarily evil per se, but that the US influence seems to dictate their development in a pernicious way , so as not to allow them to serve effectively the ends that they were created for, but rather serve their (antecedent unclear) own geopolitical agendas in a very subtle way. Think of Latin America . , didn't Didn't the US impose severe economic sanctions to upon certain countries in the region or threw , and throw uncooperative but legitimate governments into anarchy? I believe, for instance, that the US , by promoting neo-liberal principles and thus deviating from the original philosophy of the IMF , is serving its (antecedent unclear) agenda in spreading poverty to lesser , and less assertive nations. (This is a little hard to parse because of the unusual repetition of two different uses of "less." I'm not sure what to do about it.) Other such actions carried through seemingly legitimate institutions seem to serve the same agenda.No matter what era , ( No matter what the era / No matter what era we're in ) ? ? we see more of the same thing ; : bullying and plundering.
Hi, Whole grain. "No matter what era" is probably okay. I don't know if it's high register.

Poor George will be devastated to learn you consider his policies neo-liberal.

Best wishes, - A.
Well, everything is NOT all right as you see the changes going throughout the world. It seems phlegmatic but it's just more than that, more explicit, I must say. And I must tell you that the US isn't the only problem that is being faced, almost everyone might be the blame for the cause, because seriously, it's not only the government that actually come up with these problems, the individuals actually bring up all these things and you can't possibly complain when you know that some country is poor and they cannot survive on their own without help or aid from other countries, more to say, "intervention" from other countries. Anyways, when you mentioned "bullying and plundering," it happened long ago, it is happening now, and it will happen. It is something that cannot be changed unless our minds are opened to what is really right.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Wow, thanks.

But wouldn't "committing efforts into" be borderline acceptable?
Hi, guys, I don't know if Wholegrain intended this for the "Controversial Topics Discussion" Forum, or the grammar one. I know I shouldn't have commented on it, but I just couldn't resist a quickie. (Just a cookie after all that hard work.) Maybe the moderators will move it before we get all bound up.

We usually don't look at the grammar when it's posted for discussion, but I took the title as a request to check it. And it IS posted in the grammar section.

I enjoyed your reply, cyperpunk. What's it like in the Marshall Islands?

- A.
wholegrain wouldn't "committing efforts into" be borderline acceptable?

I think it would be a stretch. You could argue it, but in the end it wouldn't be natural. At least, that's my opinion.

Committing troops, committing funds, is not like committing murder. In this sense, we usually commit countable things - things we can put a number on. (I may be wrong.) I don't know how you commit an effort. ("I promise you I'll give it my best shot!") ??? Mebby so.

You may say, "I'm fully committed to this effort. And in this case effort is countable - one effort - this effort, not that effort.

But it's I who am committed, not the effort that's committed.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Ah, I see. Thank you.